Suffering and not suffering

Presumably, those advanced in the buddhist insight path suffer less or not at all. Is this because:
1. Painful feelings no longer arise?
or.
2. Paintful feelings still arise but the realtionship to them is so different that suffering does not ensue?
or.
3. neither of the above

Is it a brave, stupid or enlightened person that would proclaim not to be able to suffer?

"Is it a brave, stupid or enlightened person that would proclaim not to be able to suffer?
"

all of the above

"all of the above"

Ah, touché

If seeing, hearing, feelings and thoughts (all of which could be unpleasant or painful ) just arise and belong to no one, then there is no one to suffer.

Surrender to the body / mind being just that.

"If seeing, hearing, feelings and thoughts (all of which could be unpleasant or painful ) just arise and belong to no one, then there is no one to suffer.

Surrender to the body / mind being just that.
"

This is a vote for number two, then, right?

"This is a vote for number two, then, right? "

Not being "advanced in the buddhist insight path" I am not qualified to vote. But I will comment on experiences and what I know .

The only insight required is quite likely what you already know. Thoughts are just thoughts, feelings are just feelings, sensations are just sensations, these perceptions happen to no one because there is no one. When there is a "slipping" into all these just happening separately, simultaneously there is an acceptance of what is already known, that is there is only this.

"2. Paintful feelings still arise but the realtionship to them is so different that suffering does not ensue?"
If you open up the voting; this answer is not correct because there is no relationship to speak of, so for what ever reason you want to count votes I vote 3.

I like to think of things this way - and this is just my personal opinion:

All the things we talk about here exist. To say bluntly "there is no one, no you" is, I believe, an oversimplification that can be misleading. I know why people say this, and usually it's said that way as a kind of shorthand for what I'm going to say, so... no blame is being assessed here. Anyway...

- there is a body but that body is not you
- there is "stuff" but that "stuff" is not you
- there are feelings but those feelings are not you
- there are thoughts but those thoughts are not you
- there is suffering but that suffering is not you

The real question is "What is this "you" thing in all of that? Just what is it that is feeling, thinking, hurting, suffering? There is no permanent you, no "thing" that you can point to that is the essence of "you." So the key is the realization of that fact, the dis-identification of suffering with some imagined permanent "you" and the resulting objectification of the suffering.

Hi Chris,

That is well said, and thanks for clarifying what I said.
There is an "I sense" that arises, when this goes thoughts, feelings sound etc just appear and do not belong to this "I sense" . Exactly what this "I sense" is, is probably best realised when it goes. I like your description of an imagined permanent you.

I'm sitting at work listening to a Tara Brach lecture. She says:

"pain plus resistence equals suffering."

"so, pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional"

"I'm sitting at work listening to a Tara Brach lecture. She says:

"pain plus resistence equals suffering."

"so, pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional" "

Any sensation, thought or feeling + interaction (grasping or resisting) = suffering.

The imagined permanent "you" Chris spoke of gets in the way appearing to co-ordinate perceptions as happening to itself.

[edit] if there be no imagined permanent "you" there is no suffering. Although the meaning of suffering in this context I think could be not fully understood unless experienced.

Because desire loses its grip.